[littlemanpoet]

Let me put it this way: can a visible-soul character be portrayed either in the external manner or the internal? If the answer is "no, such a character can only be portrayed in the external manner" then it seems to me that the whole notion of the visible soul is only a fancy way of talking about the external technique of characterization. - Aiwendil

I needed time away to think. A visible soul is the same inside as out. I think it's simple as that. As Mr. Underhill said. My focus has been on the characters, but they aren't the only visible souls. So maybe characters' internal psychological processing can be expressed, and as long as the interior is the same as the exterior, that's a visible soul. I'll have to think about that some more. That said, I still think it's useful to take notice that Tolkien rarely "went into the head" of anybody, and only at pivotal plot points. What does that tell us?

The idea that internal attributes are hidden from everyone but "those who have eyes to see" seems on the surface of it to contradict the idea of the visible soul. I mean, visible means visible, right? - Mr. Underill

Yes. That extra phrase was a reckless afterthought. I meant it in terms of those, like Edmund Wilson, author of "Ooh, those awful Orcs", a 1950s review of LotR - who complained about the one-dimensionality of everything in the book and the fact that it had no sex (he criticized the work as adolescent - to which Tolkien responded that Wilson should grow up); and those in our own day who require deep characterization in their fantasy, replete with such a load of psychological processing that the story is plotted by means of characterization rather than by event. It's like having to have your scrambled eggs with ketchup or it's not scrambled eggs! Pardon me for airing my pet peeves having to do with being a frustrated writer. So yes. Visible is visible (of course, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is, right?)

But do these precedents lie outside the legendarium? Or are they part of it? The legendarium is a creation, amd that creation came from the mind of one person who held many other creations within his own mind. The idea of an 'earth spirit' may not be explicitly mentioned in Tolkien's work, but it is there nevertheless. Whether by intention or accident, this concept crept in. - Lalwendë

Beware of tipping over the tower to peer at the stones. But did the concept creep into the story, or into your mind while reading the story? Definitely on Canonicity grounds here! Guess where I stand on that.

But the fact that many people do recognise this concept tells us that it is entirely possible Tolkien may have reflected this concept in his writing, either consciously or subconsciously; which he did, does not matter if it is there.

"Entirely possible" is a good deal short of "likely", which is itself a good deal short of "evident". Could you provide evidence to back your assertion? The fact that many people recognize this concept (or any) tells us that it is part of our storehouse, rather than that which Tolkien put in his Legendarium. Conjectures about what Tolkien subconsciously reflected probably tells us more about ourselves than anything about Tolkien.

A visible soul is the same on the inside as on the outside. Let's just assume that this is true of Tom Bombadil as well as everything and everyone else in Middle Earth. What is to be found in the text is therefore that which is about Tom Bombadil. He's master but not owner, for all natural things belong to themselves. In the words of Goldberry, "He is." And "He is as you have seen him. He is the Master of wood, water, and hill." He has borders. He has no fear. He is an old man. He is a teller of remarkable tales. He can tell the Hobbits of everything that has ever been, even before the Sun rose the first time.

What does that tell the reader?

Perhaps 'Tom Bombadil' is simply that aspect of the spirit of Arda made manifest in that particular time & place? - davem

I think what makes me uncomfortable with this are (1) "manifest" and (2) "aspect of the spirit of Arda". Such verbage is borrowed into the language, and therefore the meaning feels alien to me. What if the sentence could be reconstituted in native English words (with apologies to davem)? "Tom Bombadil is simply that wight of the breath of Earth seen in that one time and place?" Hmmm.... Maybe. So why do I like this better? Probably because it rings more mythically than the original.